Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5661410" data-attributes="member: 82106">Heh, can't XP you again, I was in the midst of cracking my PHB open to that page <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I understand Tymophil's point, but I think there's more to it than that. 4e has to at least TRY to cater to a broad audience with a lot of different notions of what D&amp;D is. Many of us have noted that this and that aspect of the game could be construed to be intended to facilitate various methods of RPing, and that little note or discussion of this happens within the core rulebooks, or indeed anywhere in official material. The people who wrote 4e however are quite obviously deeply knowledgeable about RPGs. Did they 'fail' to explain THE way their game was to be played? Or did they simply understand that it would be played in many different ways and as its 'keepers' they needed to stick to the sidelines in this debate? The game is mostly going to be played by people who just want to have a good time and throw some dice. We here are a self-selected group that loves to debate the nuances of TT RPGing, but most groups are more likely to need 'crunch' and practical frameworks for accomplishing the basic tasks of running a game, not esoteric advice on GNS theory and how it applies to D&amp;D. Interestingly enough the DMG contains one such section, but it is entirely dedicated to discussing the types of play people enjoy, not theories ABOUT RPGs.As for KotS, you could release 100 better adventures and it will still stand as the first 4e module. You can't erase it from history. Just like G1 was the first AD&amp;D module (well sort of) you can write 100 other modules and that one will still stand as the first word on the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5661410, member: 82106"] Heh, can't XP you again, I was in the midst of cracking my PHB open to that page ;) I understand Tymophil's point, but I think there's more to it than that. 4e has to at least TRY to cater to a broad audience with a lot of different notions of what D&D is. Many of us have noted that this and that aspect of the game could be construed to be intended to facilitate various methods of RPing, and that little note or discussion of this happens within the core rulebooks, or indeed anywhere in official material. The people who wrote 4e however are quite obviously deeply knowledgeable about RPGs. Did they 'fail' to explain THE way their game was to be played? Or did they simply understand that it would be played in many different ways and as its 'keepers' they needed to stick to the sidelines in this debate? The game is mostly going to be played by people who just want to have a good time and throw some dice. We here are a self-selected group that loves to debate the nuances of TT RPGing, but most groups are more likely to need 'crunch' and practical frameworks for accomplishing the basic tasks of running a game, not esoteric advice on GNS theory and how it applies to D&D. Interestingly enough the DMG contains one such section, but it is entirely dedicated to discussing the types of play people enjoy, not theories ABOUT RPGs. As for KotS, you could release 100 better adventures and it will still stand as the first 4e module. You can't erase it from history. Just like G1 was the first AD&D module (well sort of) you can write 100 other modules and that one will still stand as the first word on the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification